Well, not you. Hopefully, few of my readers would be capable of doing that.

I mean, can a person, any person, rape a dog?

What I really mean is, is the word "rape" really applicable here? It just looks strange to me. Obviously, of course, it's possible to forcibly penetrate a dog (well, not for me--I wouldn't be able to get, or keep it up for such an act), but the word "rape" has connotations that don't, or at least shouldn't, apply. To me, the word rape means non-consensual penetration (of either gender), but can there be any other kind of penetration of an (non-human) animal? It seems like a category error to me.

How does a dog issue consent? I don't have any personal experience, but I'm given to understand that this is not an uncommon activity on farms, and that the animals don't always necessarily fight back or complain (and generally aren't even injured), but that's not the same thing as granting permission.

Now clearly, this was a brutal crime, but it seems to me that the crime is animal cruelty, not rape. The fact that the instrument of torture and injury was the young man's male member doesn't change that.

"The Jones family says Princess wouldn't eat or play anymore after the attack. "She (Princess) couldn't even sit down, her bottom was swollen sore."

Sylvia says she knows Princess was just a dog, but she wants people to know that Princess was also a part of her family. A family that now has been forever changed. "She looked so pitiful. It's sad, there was nothing I could do for her."

Uhhh...You could have taken her to the vet before she bled to death internally.

I would like to think that it's odd that the word "rape" is being used, but then again, I'm not terribly surprised.

The prosecutor admitted fully that the alleged perpetrator is being charged with the "most serious animal cruelty charges they have on the books." It's Fox Carolina that sensationalised it into a rape case.

To wit: "Neighbors worry that if Williamson is accused of raping a dog and molesting two girls in the same neighborhood, who knows what might happen next." Even though he's being charged with statutory rape of the 13 year-old, and animal cruelty, apparently he raped the dog, but only molested the girl.

I'm not sure what it says about the world in the Carolina's when dogs can be raped but children can only be molested... Or what it says when Fox Carolina takes the owner's Cause of Death of a dog over the word of a licensed veterinarian...

[b]Even though he's being charged with statutory rape of the 13 year-old, and animal cruelty, apparently he raped the dog, but only molested the girl.

I'm not sure what it says about the world in the Carolina's when dogs can be raped but children can only be molested...[/b]

What makes you think children in Carolina "can only be molested"? "Molestation" implies inappropriate sexual touching, but not actual sex. Had the latter occured, he'd be charged with child rape.

I don't know this for sure, now, but I seem to remember that this particular Fox station LEANS toward the Liberal side of sensational news broadcasting. I say that because I used to frequently drive through the Greenville / Spartanburg area while working in SC.

So if it's still a liberal station, it stands to reason that dogs can be raped but little girls can only be molested. Meaning, "the poor dog couldn't call for help", ergo was not willing, or some other stupid such bunny hugger liberal junk.

The article says they saw him doing it, but doesn't say if they stopped him or chased him away. And they evidently did not seek the vet. So while he did something wrong and appalling, they didn't do much better, after the dog was abused.

NEXT, Statutory Rape implies willingness of an underage person in the sex act. Not right for him, but not rape in the legal sense. Thats why the 2 different laws exist. Why even here in the good ol' boy, trailer trash, buck toothed, south, we have 'em 'ere difernt law thingys, fer difernt cryms. (insert your worst Dukes of Hazard accent for that last bit, morons)

AND MY LAST.....here in NORTH Carolina we do indeed know the difference in animal cruelty and the rape or statutory rape of human females. SOUTH Carolina will, of course, have to figure this out for themselves.

BECAUSE, and this is very important....

There is after all no CAROLINAS, in a legal or judiciary sense, any more than the states of NEW ENGLAND, or THE GREAT PLAINS, or THE NORTHWEST, have the same laws, police forces, or justice systems. No one ever lumps Texas and New Mexico, or Indiana and Ohio together like that, so why would you do you do it here? HUH?

You mean like lumping the Virginias?

Nah, more like The Dakotas...

Liberal media, in upstate South Carolina? Surely you jest!

There I go again. Forgot my </sarcasm> tag.

If a dog can only be raped, why the qualms about calling it rape?

Personally I find it interesting that people are quibbling about what word to use in the killing of this dog, and seemingly less concerned about the fact that this asshole raped a 13-year-old and molested a 3-year-old in the same neighborhood.

Sadly, Anne, rapes occur every day, even of little girls, and discussing how morally depraved this person indeed is might be gratifying for some, but wouldn't serve much purpose on this blog. This post is a criticism of the media. Hopefully, the courts will deal with the creature who committed all of these crimes.

If rape is "non-consensual penetration," then by definition, sexual penetration of an animal is rape, since an animal is, again by definition, not capable of consenting to the act. But agree that the connotation of the word is one of inter-human activity.

Of course, rape is far worse than simple non-consensual penetration: it is a crime of violence rather than a sexual crime. Sex is merely the instrumentality.

If rape is "non-consensual penetration," then by definition, sexual penetration of an animal is rape, since an animal is, again by definition, not capable of consenting to the act.

That being the case, doesn't "animal rape" -- understood as "rape of an animal" -- constitute a redundancy?

I love how the dog victim is pictured in the news story. Really brings home the tragedy, eh?

And its a pit bull! Damn. If I were raping dogs, I'd start with something a bit safer, like a nice Lab or something.

Um... why is everyone ignoring the obvious question? Or maybe is it only obvious to me?

What if it's the DOG doing the penetrating?

My sources-- and lemme make this point without people focusing on the irrelevant-- indicate that this latter is by far the more common order of things in situations like this.

What does THAT indicate? Surely, aside from anything else, that the whole "consent" thing is not a one-sided matter.

Of course that's not what happened in the case described in this story, which I would argue is rape and quite detestable. But I think a far more relevant discussion can be had by imagining the reverse case where it isn't rape at all.

It is just a dog people.

Then some people wonder why their moral system is out of whack.

I am only worried about people, like those small children. Dogs are roadkill everyday.

No, we do not have enough resources to waste by giving animals equal rights to humans yet. Not until you can grow totally synthetic (and acceptable food), etc.

Sadly, Anne, rapes occur every day, even of little girls, and discussing how morally depraved this person indeed is might be gratifying for some, but wouldn't serve much purpose on this blog.

Indeed. I didn't actually mean to indict this blog in particular. I've been reading about this issue in several different locations and everyone's talking about the dog. Even in the media stories, the two children that got assaulted get only a peripheral mention.

It is, however, an update to an ongoing case, since the kid was arrested some time back for the other crimes, and the dog only recently died.

I agree that the rape of children, however horrible, is sufficiently commonplace that it generally doesn't merit special mention on a blog entry, including mine. :)

As a matter of fact, it's the dog element that makes this story more worthy of note than others, because it is so unusual.